I'm not sure the "retracted flaps instead of landing gear" theory holds up. Both pilots had thousands of hours of experience and it's not as if the controls are that similar or next to each other even.
The attached photo is of the 787 centre stack. The throttle control is in the middle, flaps to the right, landing gear to the left. As you can see, they both have very different, distinctive knobs/handles, plus the landing gear is a simple two position control, whilst the flats control is far more complicated. Blindfolded operating the two controls would feel very different, so even if the co-pilot somehow managed to grab the wrong one by mistake, there's no way you could confuse the two in operation.
That's the spoiler on the left... landing gear is on the centre panel, in fact you can see it in the distance through the throttle handles
I'm not sure the "retracted flaps instead of landing gear" theory holds up. Both pilots had thousands of hours of experience and it's not as if the controls are that similar or next to each other even.
The attached photo is of the 787 centre stack. The throttle control is in the middle, flaps to the right, landing gear to the left. As you can see, they both have very different, distinctive knobs/handles, plus the landing gear is a simple two position control, whilst the flats control is far more complicated. Blindfolded operating the two controls would feel very different, so even if the co-pilot somehow managed to grab the wrong one by mistake, there's no way you could confuse the two in operation.
That's the spoiler on the left... landing gear is on the centre panel, in fact you can see it in the distance through the throttle handles
So even less chance of accidentally retracting the flaps instead of the landing gear. I've not heard the audio myself, but if comments regarding the RAT are accurate then that would suggest some sort of power failure leading to a hydraulic failure which would explain the landing gear not retracting.
Honestly I'd ignore the whole speculation about flaps being raised early, it's nonsense. The fact the RAT was deployed and a mayday was called tells you there was a very severe issue with the aircraft. As for anything else, it's purely speculation and until the black boxes are found literally no one will know any answers and just keep speculating.
It's wrong to attempt to point fingers at anything or one right now
Am I the only one who doesn't know what RAT is...🤷♂️
I wouldn't expect most folk to know what one is to be honest, apologies to not explaining it properly earlier! Ram Air Turbine, basically in situations of engine loss a small wind powered generator is dropped into the airstream to provide electrical and hydraulic pressure to the aircraft. It's hard to see in the original video that's going around, but for engineers like myself.. we can absolutely hear it in the video because they're LOUD
This video gives you an idea of what it looks like in flight
I saw that, and whilst the guy was definitely on the same plane, and I don't doubt anything he says, everything he describes isn't necessarily an indication of an electrical fault.
The four main things he mentions are:
1) No aircon whilst on the ground 2) Lights not working 3) Call button not working 4) Entertainment UI non-reactive whilst on the ground
1) The air con runs either of the engines, the APU (auxiliary power unit, usually in the tail cone) or GPU (ground power unit). Obviously the engines are running up until just before taxi, so whilst at the gate air con is either turned off or running off of one of the other two power sources. APU costs fuel, and there may be regulations against it as the airport due to noise, whilst the airport charge for GPU. Therefore lack of air con is more likely to be a cost saving measure by the airline than an electrical fault
2/3) Access to these can be controlled by the flight crew from their position on modern jets, so may well be disabled during boarding/taxi, and it's possible never re-enabled on the portion of the flight the guy was talking about.
4) Again, UI access is often disabled during boarding/taxi, blank screens would be more indicative of an electrical fault I would have thought.
With subsequent events we're never going to know if there were any genuine electric faults, or just operational choices made that are inconvenient/undesirable to passengers
Yes, terrible news. I was running over Beckenham Place Park this morning and kept hearing the planes on their descent to Gatwick. It really brought it home. So sad. All those lives, young and old, wiped out.
the summary is that both fuel cut off switches were pulled simultaneously on take off, who & why isn’t answered in this sadly. But at least it proves the whole flaps thing the media has been going on about was nonsense
the summary is that both fuel cut off switches were pulled simultaneously on take off, who & why isn’t answered in this sadly. But at least it proves the whole flaps thing the media has been going on about was nonsense
The news reports I saw said that the 2 pilots in the cockpit were talking. One asked the other why had they pulled the fuel cut off switch, with the reply of I didnt. Hopefully with more time they will be able to work out who said what and why.
Would love to know where the fuel switches are located in the cockpit and if they could be used accidentally, maybe @Sheepie1985 could help us with his apparent knowledge 🤔
Would love to know where the fuel switches are located in the cockpit and if they could be used accidentally, maybe @Sheepie1985 could help us with his apparent knowledge 🤔
BBC news showed them in the middle between the two pilots.
Would love to know where the fuel switches are located in the cockpit and if they could be used accidentally, maybe @Sheepie1985 could help us with his apparent knowledge 🤔
In the picture above its the 2 round black knobs at the bottom. Also says cut off in between them.
“in December 2018, the US Federal Aviation Administration issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) highlighting that some Boeing 737 fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged.“
- could be that no pilot had anything to do with the the movement of the switches - maybe grasping in hope that it wouldn’t be a scenario as mentioned above, and maybe it’s time video recorders are installed in the cockpit.
my first thought hearing of the 'fuel cut off' mystery .. as you say, several cases over the past few years, still very rare of course .. I doubt there will ever be a definite conclusion ..
I always feel that we are being drip-fed information about this sort of thing.
I know it's complicated but how can it have taken so longer to extract this information especially now they have such powerful computers to help them. Has some software been running for weeks to finally extract a fragment of conversation and the fact that two crucial switches had been flipped?
I always feel that we are being drip-fed information about this sort of thing.
I know it's complicated but how can it have taken so longer to extract this information especially now they have such powerful computers to help them. Has some software been running for weeks to finally extract a fragment of conversation and the fact that two crucial switches had been flipped?
“We”?
Who are the “they” that are withholding information that you need to have?
this isn’t some mass conspiracy - I can only imaging the complexity involved in a case like this and therefore the need to have plenty lined up before releasing information within the realms of all regulatory requirements.
Surprised the incredible lone survivor hasn’t been all over our TVs.
Has the media respected his privacy for a change or is he still in hospital?
He did attend his brother’s funeral a few days after the crash.
How hard must that have been. Not only the mourning of his brother but the feeling that the same thing should be happening for him. I really hope he goes on to live a happy life but can imagine the struggle it will be.
I always feel that we are being drip-fed information about this sort of thing.
I know it's complicated but how can it have taken so longer to extract this information especially now they have such powerful computers to help them. Has some software been running for weeks to finally extract a fragment of conversation and the fact that two crucial switches had been flipped?
“We”?
Who are the “they” that are withholding information that you need to have?
this isn’t some mass conspiracy - I can only imaging the complexity involved in a case like this and therefore the need to have plenty lined up before releasing information within the realms of all regulatory requirements.
Not really talking about a grand conspiracy or anything like that.
Just a feeling that there are people who know and have known for a while a lot more about what happened. I personally find this frustrating. No big deal!
I always feel that we are being drip-fed information about this sort of thing.
I know it's complicated but how can it have taken so longer to extract this information especially now they have such powerful computers to help them. Has some software been running for weeks to finally extract a fragment of conversation and the fact that two crucial switches had been flipped?
“We”?
Who are the “they” that are withholding information that you need to have?
this isn’t some mass conspiracy - I can only imaging the complexity involved in a case like this and therefore the need to have plenty lined up before releasing information within the realms of all regulatory requirements.
Not really talking about a grand conspiracy or anything like that.
Just a feeling that there are people who know and have known for a while a lot more about what happened. I personally find this frustrating. No big deal!
It's just the way that these investigations go.
They try, providing they can get them, to interrogate multiple systems data, as well as trying to reconstruct as much as possible of the relevant wreckage before saying anything, because it's really easy to start a panic or even put an airline or aircraft manufacturer out of business by speaking out too soon.
I'm actually surprised that we've been told this much this soon.
It will be very interesting to see if they can determine a probable cause of the fuel being switched off (as a national carrier, the Indian government, and Airbus, will be hoping it's a manufacturing issue, while Boeing will want it to be pilot error or worse, and, as both parties are involved in the investigation...).
Would love to know where the fuel switches are located in the cockpit and if they could be used accidentally, maybe @Sheepie1985 could help us with his apparent knowledge 🤔
"It's a really important switch and therefore it's one that's protected against somebody just brushing against it," explains Graham Braithwaite, director of Aerospace and Aviation at Cranfield University.
In order for a pilot to move the switch, "they've got to lift it and move it very positively to the position".
Information I have gleaned from those that know what they are talking about - 1. It is a (legal ?) requirement for an interim report to be published within 30 days. 2. Final reports can say something entirely different to the interim report. 3. It is not possible to move the fuel cut off switches accidentally. They are sprung, require lifting up, moving over a barrier then lowering into position. The same operation is needed to reverse the action.
For the record, I know nothing about planes or flying them !
Comments
It's wrong to attempt to point fingers at anything or one right now
Lighten up.
I wouldn't expect most folk to know what one is to be honest, apologies to not explaining it properly earlier! Ram Air Turbine, basically in situations of engine loss a small wind powered generator is dropped into the airstream to provide electrical and hydraulic pressure to the aircraft. It's hard to see in the original video that's going around, but for engineers like myself.. we can absolutely hear it in the video because they're LOUD
This video gives you an idea of what it looks like in flight
Cant vouch for the source
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1906988670102340&id=100064838136629
The four main things he mentions are:
1) No aircon whilst on the ground
2) Lights not working
3) Call button not working
4) Entertainment UI non-reactive whilst on the ground
1) The air con runs either of the engines, the APU (auxiliary power unit, usually in the tail cone) or GPU (ground power unit). Obviously the engines are running up until just before taxi, so whilst at the gate air con is either turned off or running off of one of the other two power sources. APU costs fuel, and there may be regulations against it as the airport due to noise, whilst the airport charge for GPU. Therefore lack of air con is more likely to be a cost saving measure by the airline than an electrical fault
2/3) Access to these can be controlled by the flight crew from their position on modern jets, so may well be disabled during boarding/taxi, and it's possible never re-enabled on the portion of the flight the guy was talking about.
4) Again, UI access is often disabled during boarding/taxi, blank screens would be more indicative of an electrical fault I would have thought.
With subsequent events we're never going to know if there were any genuine electric faults, or just operational choices made that are inconvenient/undesirable to passengers
the summary is that both fuel cut off switches were pulled simultaneously on take off, who & why isn’t answered in this sadly. But at least it proves the whole flaps thing the media has been going on about was nonsense
“in December 2018, the US Federal Aviation Administration issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) highlighting that some Boeing 737 fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged.“
- could be that no pilot had anything to do with the the movement of the switches - maybe grasping in hope that it wouldn’t be a scenario as mentioned above, and maybe it’s time video recorders are installed in the cockpit.
very sad for all affected.
I know it's complicated but how can it have taken so longer to extract this information especially now they have such powerful computers to help them. Has some software been running for weeks to finally extract a fragment of conversation and the fact that two crucial switches had been flipped?
this isn’t some mass conspiracy - I can only imaging the complexity involved in a case like this and therefore the need to have plenty lined up before releasing information within the realms of all regulatory requirements.
Just a feeling that there are people who know and have known for a while a lot more about what happened. I personally find this frustrating. No big deal!
They try, providing they can get them, to interrogate multiple systems data, as well as trying to reconstruct as much as possible of the relevant wreckage before saying anything, because it's really easy to start a panic or even put an airline or aircraft manufacturer out of business by speaking out too soon.
I'm actually surprised that we've been told this much this soon.
It will be very interesting to see if they can determine a probable cause of the fuel being switched off (as a national carrier, the Indian government, and Airbus, will be hoping it's a manufacturing issue, while Boeing will want it to be pilot error or worse, and, as both parties are involved in the investigation...).
In order for a pilot to move the switch, "they've got to lift it and move it very positively to the position".
1. It is a (legal ?) requirement for an interim report to be published within 30 days.
2. Final reports can say something entirely different to the interim report.
3. It is not possible to move the fuel cut off switches accidentally. They are sprung, require lifting up, moving over a barrier then lowering into position. The same operation is needed to reverse the action.
For the record, I know nothing about planes or flying them !